Karnataka

Gadag

CC/75/2017

Sandeep M. Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asus India Pvt Ltd., & others - Opp.Party(s)

M.B.Sajjanar

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                        O R D E R

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA .C.H., PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

        2.       The averments of the complaints in brief are:

             The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that he has purchased Asus Zen 2 Mobile phone set through online from OP No.2, Handset bearing No.MOBE6KDCDC26EU3UWIN VI27906 IMEI No.3524 649076850708, dated:03-07-2015 by paying Rs.20,000/- vide Bill No.BLR-WFLD20150700080275. 

            After purchase of said mobile phone one line is appearing on the screen and the same was intimated to OP No.3-service center and they said that there is a display problem and advised to change the display and kept the mobile set with them for repairing the same. At that time the complainant asked to give another set, but the OP No.3 did not heed to his request and OP No.3 returned the said mobile set on 27-02-2016, saying that the said mobile set is repaired.    After using for 2 months, the same problem occurred on screen of the said mobile set, but the OP NO.3charged Rs.4,380/- for changing display on 14-10-2016 and when the said problem was shown to OP No.3, then he said that there is defect in the said mobile set and informed that for the repair charges of said mobile set will be Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the complainant. The OP No.3 even after knowing there is a defect in the said mobile set, this act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service.   Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 22-06-2017 through his counsel, for that OP NO.2 & 3 did not replied the same and did not replaced the defective mobile phone with another mobile set.    Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation from the OPs that Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., towards the cost of the said mobile  set and also to repay Rs.4,380/- towards repair charges, compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards

mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.  

3.        The Forum registered a case and issued notice to the OPs. After service of the notices the OPs appeared through their Counsel and the OP-1 had filed the written version, denied all allegations made in the complaint.  The OP No.1 admitted that, the complainant had purchased the said mobile phone on 03/07/2015, hence warranty period for the same was upto 02/07/2016 and the complainant visited the OP No.3/service center on 13/02/2016 with some issues and same was rectified as the said mobile set was under warranty period and after repairing the same it was handed over to the complainant on 15/02/2016.    The complainant was satisfied with the repair conducted by OP NO.3 and took back the said mobile set.   It is further submitted that the complainant again visited OP No.3 on 22/02/2016 with a complaint regarding display as there were certain patches on the display.   It is further submitted that the said problem occurred due to rough handling of the device but not a manufacturing defect, but to build a good customer relationship agreed to get the same repaired under warranty and did not charge for the same from the complainant.   Thereafter complainant again came back to the OP NO.3 on 12/10/2016 and complained that the touch screen was not working and requested OP NO.3 to repair the same. The OP No.3 informed the complainant that warranty period of the device expired and any repair to be carried out on the device would be chargeable, which was agreed by the complainant and the OP No.3 returned the said set to the complainant on 14/10/2016 after effective repair. It is further submitted that due to rough handling of the device by the complainant there was again display problem

complainant visited the OP No.3 on 31/03/2017 after the warranty period. After receiving the said mobile phone from the complainant, the OP No.3 noticed that the said mobile set was repaired by unauthorized service provider and there was soldering of the speaker and the sub board already repaired by an unauthorized service center.   It is further submitted that the warranty period of the mobile set was expired and since the device was got service at an unauthorized service center and damage caused to the said set, which was not covered under warranty and the complainant would have to pay the cost for the repair of the device and the complainant agreed to the same and assured to come back and have device repaired.  But all of a sudden this complaint is filed.     Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1, as the complainant has not alleged anything against the OP No.1, hence it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP No.1 with costs.

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with 05 documents which are marked as EX C1 to C-5 in support of his case. The documents are as follows:

EX C1	Bill
EX C2	Asus Product Job card, dtd: 22-02-2016.
EX C3	Asus Product Job card, dtd: 12-10-2016.
EX C4	Office copy of legal notice
EX C5	Office copy of legal notice.
Ex C5(a)	Postal Cover.
Ex C5(b) & (c)	Postal acknowledgments.
ExC6	Cash Cheque Receipt of F1 Info Solutions & Services Pvt. Ltd.,
ExC7	Job Card dated:25-02-2016.
Ex C8	Job Card dated:14-10-2016.
Ex C8	Job Card dated:14-04-2017.

 

 The OPs on their behalf also filed chief affidavit of OP NO.1 along with Xerox copies of 02 documents which were not marked. 

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents?
2.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 –Negative.

Point No.3- As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

           6.  POINT NO.1 AND 2:  Both the points are inter-link and identical. Hence we proceed both the points together.

7. The complainant filed this complaint against the OPs that he purchased the Mobile set through online from OP No.2 for Rs.20,000/- on            03-07-2015, vide bill NO.BLRWFLD-2015073080275.   After the purchase of said mobile, a line was appearing on the screen, which has been intimated to OP No.3 service center, the OP No.3 intimated the complainant that there is a display problem and advised to change the display.    The said mobile was repaired by the OP NO.3 and returned it on 27-02-2016, it was well in warranty.  Again the same problem was occurred on 14-10-2016, complainant approached OP No.3 carrying the problem and handed over the set to OP No.3 on 14-10-2016, the OP No.3 rectified the problem and received a sum of Rs.4,380/- from the complainant.   After some days, the same problem occurred, in this occasion when the complainant approached the OP No.3, the OP No.3 says that the charges for the

repair is Rs.10,000/-,if he have to repair the mobile now.   Hence the complainant submits that the set is defective, instead of giving new one or the amount of the mobile, the OP No.3 demanded Rs.10,000/-, hence he issued the legal notice and filed the complaint this is the submission of the complainant. 

8.   On the other hand, OP No.1 denied all the allegations made by the complainant, specifically he admitted that complainant purchased the mobile from their company and had agreed that they repaired the mobile set, while it was within warranty period and it was handed over to the complainant and he was satisfied with the repair of the set by the OP No.3 and even complainant had collected the phone set, the said phone was serviced two times, while it was in warranty, to build a good customer relationship and did not charge during the warranty period.  On 12-10-2016 the complainant approached the OP No.3 for the problem of touch screen, but the said phone was barred by warranty and informed the same to the complainant and the complainant received the said mobile after rectifying the mobile and paid the charges of the mobile set.       Again on 31-03-2017 the complainant approached the OP NO.3 for carrying same problem, but the OP No.3 observed that the said mobile was already handed over the phone for repair to unauthorized repair center and there was soldering of the speaker and sub board already repaired by an unauthorized service center, since OP NO.3 refused to receive the hand set and further submit that due to rough handling of the unauthorized service center.  The inner part of the set were damaged these are the submissions of the OP No.1.    The other OPs have also contended that for unauthorized gain and to harass the OP’s filed this complaint against these OPs.  

 9.  In the meantime, Forum appointed a Court Commissioner to check the device.  Here there is an undisputed fact that the complainant purchased the mobile set from the OPs the complainant paid Rs.4380/- for repair of the mobile and also the complainant approached the OP No.3 twice after purchase of the mobile, he approached OP No.3 authorized service center, while the set was within a warranty, he has paid Rs.4380/- to the OP No.3, after warranty period.    Here the most important point is

that we have to discuss that whether the said mobile set is defective or not. We appointed Court Commissioner by name Sahmshuddin.S.Jakli who filed the report.   

10.  On-going through the records on file, filed by the complainant, the Job Cards, which are 03 in number, the Job card dated: 22-02-2016, the complainant approached the authorized service center of OP No.1, it is situated at Hubballi. The complainant received the mobile after rectification on                 25-07-2016 and signed on the job card.  While going through the record Ex.C-1, invoice of the bill, it has been purchased on 03-07-2015, it shows that the mobile was started giving problem after seven months and the OP No.3 had rectified the same, because it was well within the warranty period.  Another job card dated:10-12-2017 the complainant approached the OP No.3 for the same problem and it was a paid service done by the OP No.3, since on that time the warranty period was expired, the complainant collected the mobile on 14-10-2016, as per Ex.C-9 another job card dated:31-03-2017 approached the OP No.3 complaining the same problem, but this time the OP No.3 refused to rectify the problem as per Ex.C-9.  In this job card it is clearly mentioned that the handset had been serviced outside by unauthorized center, cannot be rectified without replacing the parts of the mobile and handed over to the complainant, it is very clear that the complainant used the mobile 07 months after purchasing and again used for 07 months after servicing and paid service had also performed on 12-10-2016 he has used the said mobile for 05 months.   This being clear fact, we cannot found any error in the service of the OPs unfair trade practice is found against the OPs, moreover we appointed a surveyor and checked the mobile, whether the mobile is having any manufacturing defect, but the surveyor submits the report that, he cannot found any defect in the mobile, because the screen of the mobile and the touch screen is not working properly.  The complainant did not came forward to object the report of the commissioner. It is crystal clear that the complainant used the mobile for two years and after rectifying the problems 3 times. Such being the fact, Forum found that OPs have not made any error in there service, hence we answer the Point No.1 in the negative.

           11.  POINT NO. 2: In view of our findings on the above points, the.     In the result, we pass the following: 

//O R D E R//

1. The above Complaint is dismissed with Cost.
2. Complainant is directed to pay Rs.500/- to court commissioner and report the same before the forum within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. Failing which commissioner is liable proceed against Complainant.

4.  Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 31^st day of August, 2018)

 

 

    (Shri B.S.Keri)                             (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

         Member                                                      President